>On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, Richard Sullivan wrote:
>>... I ask why it cost $3000.00. Durability, accuracy, get thrown in. I
>>then point out that I have a Timex Radio watch on that costs $39.00 and
>>keeps constant time to the 100th of a second by logging into the atomic
>>clock in Fort Collins Colorado. I then toss it on the floor. In just
>>about every quality one can ascribe to a watch the Timex wins but no one
>>will either toss their Rolex on the floor or trade me for for the Timex.
>>The Rolex has craft value. It is expensive to make and takes a good deal
>>of hand skills in it's manufacture.
>
>Permit me to suggest that you omit the major major MAJOR appeal of Rolex
>-- its status value. Certainly most of what I've seen, read and heard on
>the topic suggests that.

And a platinum print does not have status value? Yes, I totally agree with you.

As for being off topic? That's weird.

--Dick

>And permit me to observe that, in my own experience, the Timex or
>equivalent is better. When my daughter graduated from college we gave her
>a gold watch. Within two years it broke down and the cost to fix more than
>the original. At the same time I bought myself a Gruen at Bloomingdales
>for $62. That was more years ago than I care to mention, but that watch,
>many batteries and leather bands later, still keeps perfect time.
>
>Permit me also to mention that this discussion, according to the currently
>proposed rules for the alt-photo list, is OFF TOPIC ! And yet, judging by
>the messages arriving while I write, it's stirring interest, getting responses.
>
>Which is to say, lots of luck guys, with formulating, defining, following
>and policing those rules. If enforced, folks will unenforce them when
>there's a by-the-way that needs mention. When not enforced, that might be
>the time for a listminder to gently intervene -- that is, if the thing
>goes on so long it's a nuisance. Otherwise, it's my sense (and I've said
>this before) that such personal exchanges enhance and personalize the
>list, a break from formulas and techno-speak.
>
>I recall also that attempts to define "alt photo" failed soundly when
>tried early on. Given the givens I suspect such rules would be even
>harder to come by today. Surely nobody without an abiding interest is
>going to stick around for endless discussions of boiling gelatin or the
>subtleties of clearing baths. Meaning, the field will probably be
>sufficiently self defining -- as it has been.
>
>There's also the point that some folks don't want to deal with another
>list for, say, small digital questions that are readily answered here. And
>the answers do add to the sum total of list knowledge.
>
>PS. I myself find the Rolex hideous -- that metal band in itself deserving
>some kind of booby prize. Which just goes to show (if we didn't already
>understand) the power of money in "beauty" and that "handmade" can be
>ugly, too.
>
>Judy
>
>
>
>A digitally >printed< image is in effect the Timex of
>>the print world. A fine handmade print is the Rolex.
>>
>>As an aside it was a big issue that Bill Clinton was wearing a Timex at
>>his '92 inaugural. Horrors!
>>
>>Just some ideas.
>>
>>--Dick Sullivan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>At 06:41 AM 3/15/2005, you wrote:
>>> >>> schrammrus@hotmail.com 03/15/05 12:08 AM >>>
>>> >>...that digital imaging is a new form of alternative process
>>>photography...
>>>Bob Schramm<<
>>>
>>>I take issue with that terminology and would hate to see this list
>>>become overwhelmed by discussions of digital capture technologies and
>>>output devices. As marvelous as digital cameras, scanners, printers and
>>>inkjet prints are, the latter are not true photographic prints formed by
>>>the direct action of light but a rather different beast. There are
>>>other more appropriate forums for digital discourse related to capture
>>>and output IMO.
>>>Currently, when it comes to digital technologies, the list has confined
>>>itself largely to discussions of how to make a digital negative to be
>>>utilized in making an alternative process photographic print. I think
>>>that is as it should be since the final outcome from that process and
>>>light attenuator is an actual photograph.
>>>Joe
Received on Wed Mar 16 10:47:02 2005